124 / 328
entrusted to the legal profession. Committees have sat both
in Scotland and in Northern Ireland on the subject of legal
aid and both the Guthrie Report in Scotland and the report
of the Steele Committee in Northern Ireland emphasises
strongly that it is undesirable that any scheme of legal aid
or advice should be administered directly by persons employed
by the State or by any local or public authority.
The State and local authorities are themselves frequently
parties to litigation and civil proceedings and this alone is
an unanswerable argument against either of them being in
control of the administration of a legal aid scheme. The State
is, of necessity, a party to all criminal proceedings.
The
funds in any legal aid scheme must be provided by the State
but, beyond this it is in accordance with justice that the actual
administration of the scheme should be in the hands of the
profession who stand apart from any such proceedings.
The minister has indicated his willingness to co-operate
with the society and, while regretting that he has not seen fit
to concede the administration of the present limited scheme
to the profession, we must hope that he will barken to the
words of the independent committees which have considered
the problem elsewhere and will ensure that in any further or
extended scheme the administration is entrusted to the
profession.
The present Bill envisages the setting up of panels of
solicitors and it must be clear that any solicitor who so wishes
and is in the possession of a practising certificate shall be
entitled, as of right, to have his name on thepaneland not to be
capable of being removed from the panel except in accordance
with the existing disciplinary procedure.
Furthermore, it must be a fundamental of every legal aid
scheme that every citizen availing of the scheme should have
an absolute right to select his own legal adviser from the panel.
The traditional and long-established personal relationship
that exists between solicitor and client must be preserved and
its basic principle would be destroyed if the client was not
entitled to rely on the advice of the solicitor of his choice but
had somebody thrust upon him.
The panel may have to be divided into districts as it would
not be right to allow additional travelling expenses to be
incurred by permitting an accused person to select a solicitor
from another part of the country. Local panels would be
satisfactory but there are many instances of solicitors practising
in more than one area and they should be permitted to have
their names on more than one panel provided the panels were
in areas in which they normally practised, which presumably
would be contiguous areas.
If legal aid is to be a success there must be absolute con
fidence by the public in the aid which they receive and whole
hearted co-operation by the profession.
It will not be a matter for the society but for the individual
solicitors to vo lunteer their names for the panel. The profession
has always been quick to come to the aid of a person charged
with a criminal offence and I have no doubt that solicitors
will be anxious and willing to co-operate in working the Bill
but the fees which will be allowed to them under the Act,
when it becomes law, must be on some fair and reasonable
basis and related to the amount of work and responsibility
involved. At present no regulations have been made and no
scale of fees disclosed but I should like to emphasise that if
the scheme is to get the support from the individual solicitors
that I and my colleagues on the council would like to see it get,
it must be legal aid at the expense of the public funds and not
at the expense of the solicitors.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS, ETC.
The minister has recently set up a committee of inquiry
to inquire into the operation of the courts with a view to
considering whether the cost of litigation could be reduced
and the convenience of the public and the efficient despatch
of business be more effectively secured by amendments in the
law. Here again, we see the hand of the reformer and we shall,
as a profession, be very glad and willing to assist the com
mission in its investigations and we feel sure that it will find
ways and means to cut out unnecessary and wasteful steps and
procedures. The public may well feel that there is too much
formality in the administration of the law but every citizen
must realize that justice is a very precious thing and, while
modern tempo tends to lead us to try and streamline all
procedures, this, while estimable even in the case of the ad
ministration of justice, must be watched very carefully as it
would be all too easy to over-simplify the procedures and
formalities which have stood the test of years to the detriment
of justice itself.
The principle of justice and equal rights under the law must
not be prejudiced in any way, and not only must justice be
done but it must be seen to be done. No changes can be con
templated which would, in any way jeopardise such principles.
EDUCATION
Many of my predecessors have spoken to you on the subject
ofthe education ofour apprentices. This question is perennially
to the forefront of our minds and is probably, with the advent
of the common market, going to assume even greater im
portance in the near future. The present system of apprentice
ship is, in my view, outmoded. The law is becoming ever
more diverse and complex and the solicitor is the poor un
fortunate G.P. who is expected to know something, and often
more than something, about everything. The courses which
the apprentice has to study are more diverse and the examin
ations more searching than they used to be and I think that this
is inevitable. At the same time an apprentice is supposed,
while studying his theory of law, to work in his office and to
learn the practical aspects of the legal principles in day-to-day
business which is, in itself, a full-time education. An apprentice
has, of necessity, to seek long stretches away from the office
to study and it is very difficult for the practitioner to give
an apprentice ground work in the practical application of the
law when he is only intermittently in attendance at the office.
The effect of our present system of apprenticeship is to
train would-be lawyers to have a competent knowledge of
the theory of law and of the law itself but very little practical
experience of how to apply their knowledge.
From the
apprentice's point of view it is very difficult to mix both
theory and practice though, to a certain extent, they can help
each other.
I consider that the whole basis of the apprenticeship should
be changed to a system whereby the student, first of all, learns
his theoretical subjects, and passes his exams therein. The
theoretical training should be given in conjunction with the
Universities and the student should be encouraged, if not
required, to take a university degree during this period. Sub
sequently he would do an uninterrupted period of practical
apprenticeship, whole-time in his master's office. This would
mean lengthening the period of apprenticeship, which, by
statute, the Society cannot itselfdo but I think it will ultimately
be found to be necessary. The main objection that would be
raised to a longer apprenticeship could well be off-set by
providing that apprentices who have qualified in theoretical
subjects and are learning the practical application full-time
in their offices, should be paid a salary during such period on
a scale which would be prescribed.
Your profession has always been highly regulated by statute
and the time has come when it should be left to the society
itself as in other professions, to prescribe free from any
statutory restrictions what is the proper period and method
of training for a solicitor. Surely the profession is in much the